Subject: [Tools-team] Priority list, rev. 3

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:34:21 +0200

Hi,

    I've overhauled the list of proposed tools again, as shown below
(thanks Barbara). If there is no further comments on the tools-team
list, I will send this to more people tomorrow.

	Henrik

	Tool						Users
	----------------------------------------------	-----------
	WG Status update web interface 			Secretariat,
							Chairs

	IETF Meta-information:
	    * XML Publication of Meta-information	Tool Builders
	    * HTML rendering of same, if not already	Community
	      available
	    * Infrastructure, components needed by 
	      multiple tools (e.g. TMDA? Plone? )	Tool Builders,

	WG Meeting scheduler				Secretariat,
							Chairs

	Draft status pages (revs, diffs, comments)	WGs, Chairs,
							Authors
	WG page components, provided to all WGs:
	    * Issue tracker, mailing list integration	WGs, Chairs
	    * Wiki					WGs, Chairs
	    * Collaboration pages			WGs, Chairs
	    * List traffic summary			WGs, Chairs

	Notification service - "mail me when this	Community
	draft/charter changes"

	Html-ized WG agendas				IETF attendees

	I-D tracker extended for use by Chairs		Chairs, Authors,
							Secretariat

	Publication request tool			Secretariat, 
							Chairs, 
							Authors (Indep.)

	RSS/Atom feeds for new IDs, RFCs, WGs, ...	Tool Builders

	Proposed WG / Bof tools - web/wiki space	Community

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:14:52 -0600 (MDT)

>       multiple tools (e.g. TMDA? Plone? )	Tool Builders,

There are two very different things mixed up here, IMO. I am not sure 
what the right terminology is, but let me try to describe them:

 	1) Information: information about IETF documents,
 	   participants, tasks, events. Most likely to stored in
 	   XML files and/or some kind of databases. We need to
 	   document what info is maintained/available.

 	2) Tools: TMDA, Plone, etc.

Let's not mix the two.

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:27:08 +0200

Hi Alex,

>  	2) Tools: TMDA, Plone, etc.

I agree.  In my mind, I grouped your first item with the first
bullet, XML publication of Meta-Information, but maybe we should
be more explicit about that.

	Henrik

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:52:00 -0600 (MDT)

> be more explicit about that.

I guess the word "publication" confused me then. Publication, to me, 
is about how to publish, distribute, make accessible. To be more 
precise, I would suggest to include:

 	- [XML] definition of Meta-Information.
 	  What information is available? How is it defined?
 	  How can one access raw Meta-Information?

 	- [HTML] rendering of Meta-Information
 	  How we make meta-information more accessible to humans?

Things like Plone and TMDA are using Meta-Information, but they should 
not be placed in the "IETF Meta-information" category. Their category 
depends on what they actually do with Meta-Information. For example, 
IETF might provide a pre-configured Plone-based web site to WGs. That 
web site may use a lot of IETF Meta-Information to build WG pages.
This should be described as a separate item:

 	- Providing WGs with IETF-hosted web site and collaboration
 	  environment/space

In this light, I am note even sure that "rendering of 
Meta-Information" is a stand-alone category because different tools 
will render the same information differently. It may be difficult for 
folks to comprehend what "rendering of Meta-Information" means as far 
as tools, actions, specific activities are concerned. It is difficult 
for me. I would focus on specific tools whenever we can. Thus, I would 
suggest to revise the Meta-Information items as follows:

    IETF Meta-information                          Tool Builders
      * What information is available?
      * How is it defined (XML DTDs and such)
      * How can one access raw Meta-Information?

The above can be described in a single, comprehensive draft or web 
page. I would drop the generic "HTML rendering of same" and add
specific rendering tools we want:

     Draft status pages                            Community

We already have the above item. Can we think of other important ones 
to add?

Thanks,

Alex.

P.S. Sorry for late comments. I hope you can integrate these ideas
      while addressing Harald's comments to minimize the work.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:16:25 +0200

Note....

> 	WG Meeting scheduler				Secretariat,

On both these tools, the IESG needs to be added to the users.
We do stuff to WGs, including changing or approving milestones, replacing 
chairs, and updating charters.

We also have particular requirements on meetings (such as limiting the 
number of WGs managed by the same AD at the same time....).

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:36:39 +0200

Hi Harald,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> We do stuff to WGs, including changing or approving milestones, 
> replacing chairs, and updating charters.
> 

Ok, adding the IESG as user to both of these.  Thanks !

	Henrik

---

From: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Oct 2004 20:19:11 -0400

> 	RSS/Atom feeds for new IDs, RFCs, WGs, ...	Tool Builders

It would seem to me that the marginal utility of WG agendas in HTML
(compared to plain text agendas) is limited and probably lower than
the next three items.

I-D tracker feature extension, publication request tool, and RSS feeds
for IETF-related objects provide substantial new functionality,
whereas agenda format is simply about pretty-printing.  Am I missing
something?

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

Letters in this message are closer than they appear.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:05:54 +0200

Hi Stas,

> whereas agenda format is simply about pretty-printing.  Am I missing

Maybe, yes.  The html-izing referred to here is not about pretty
rendering, but rather about adding markup to make any reference to
a draft, RFC or URL be a hyperlink.  This makes it is easy while 
sitting in a session or while prepare for a session, to get right to the
document in question, rather than having to cut and paste and add
the repository part of an url by hand.

	Henrik

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:05:49 -0700

I'm wondering if we could possibly spend some time
talking about "tools for non-IETFers", i.e., those things
that would help people who aren't part of the IETF,
IESG, etc. but are implementors of IETF protocols
to understand better the status of both current and
past work.

I think sometimes even the general public, the trade
press, marketing managers for various products, prospective
buyers trying to check up on marketers claims about
approval of stuff... what do *they* need?

Larry

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:22:27 +0200

> approval of stuff... what do *they* need?

Ok, let's include that in the AoB section of today's meeting.

	Henrik